ReviewSpine surgery and related research2026
Practical Strategies for Bone Graft Selection in Spinal Fusion: A Narrative Review with Regional Perspectives.
Review in Spine surgery and related research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Successful spinal fusion depends on achieving reliable arthrodesis, and bone graft selection is a critical determinant of outcomes. Although autologous iliac crest bone graft remains the biological gold standard, limitations such as donor-site morbidity and insufficient volume have prompted the use of alternatives, including allograft, demineralized bone matrix (DBM), hydroxyapatite, and β-tricalcium phosphate. The introduction of biologics-such as recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and cell- or peptide-based constructs-has further expanded grafting options internationally. However, in Japan, the clinical use of biologics remains unapproved, and allograft availability is restricted, necessitating reliance on autograft, DBM, and ceramic substitutes. Methods: A narrative review of recent clinical and experimental studies was conducted, emphasizing graft performance across cervical, lumbar, anterior/lateral, multilevel, and minimally invasive procedures. Practical considerations, including cost, storage, supply stability, and regional regulatory constraints, were integrated into the analysis. Results: Graft performance varied substantially according to surgical context. DBM and ceramic grafts often achieved satisfactory outcomes in cervical fusion, whereas lumbar fusion required mechanically robust extenders. Multilevel and deformity correction surgeries demanded blended strategies, while minimally invasive procedures benefited from moldable DBM and granular ceramics. Cost-effectiveness and logistical feasibility strongly influenced material selection. In Japan, the lack of rhBMP-2 approval and limited bone bank infrastructure further constrained options, reinforcing pragmatic combinations such as "autograft plus ceramics" or "DBM plus ceramics." Conclusions: No single graft material is universally optimal. Reliable spinal fusion requires context-specific selection and combination strategies tailored to biological, mechanical, and regional factors. In Japan, strengthening bone bank systems and establishing robust domestic clinical evidence are essential. Future integration of regenerative grafts and next-generation biomaterials will require careful regulatory adaptation and cost-effectiveness validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.